Compare that to the Presbyterians and United Methodists, who seem to have well organized confessing movements.

I've gotten to watch the Presbyterians from a short distance, and I think a major reason why they don't have the same degree of problems is that ministers don't have a vote in their hierarchy. Historically what has happened there is that individuals (congregations or ministers) step out of line, and then the presbytery/synod/general assembly slaps things down.

Having only two consecrators wouldn't present a problem to Catholicism (Apostolicae Curae's issues do) but might to Eastern Orthodoxy (unless economy were invoked?). In Anglicanism, is it seen as a 'validity' issue or simply a matter of custom dispensible in emergencies?

Three consecrators-- that's the rule. I'd check the constitution but for some annoying reason they've made it into one massive PDF file instead of the sensibly indexed HTML that they used to keep the on-line copy in.

Good rule; it comes from Canon 4 of the Council of Nicea.

The appointment of a bishop must be made by at least three bishops of the Provincial Council of Bishops; however, according to Apostolic Canon 1 the consecration itself can be performed by as few as two bishops ( Alexander Bogolepov, Toward an American Orthodox Church: The Establishment of an Autocephalous Orthodox Church, p. 9).

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Well, you have an organization that ironically has no "Episcopal" authority, and yet they still elect bishops. At least the Anglicans have some link down in the chain. I could call myself a bishop and have as much authority (more since I'm part of the original Communion)

I'm probably revealing my total ignorance here, but isn't the Episcopalian church the Anglican church by another name?

John

You're absolutely right on the mark, John. The ECUSA (Episcopal Church in the United States of America), formerly known as the PECUSA (Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA), is the name adopted by the autonomous American branch of the Anglican Communion.

Well, you have an organization that ironically has no "Episcopal" authority, and yet they still elect bishops. At least the Anglicans have some link down in the chain. I could call myself a bishop and have as much authority (more since I'm part of the original Communion)

I don't know about that. The courts at least have no doubts about the authority of Episcopal bishops.

But is it really likely that ECUSA will come down *against* same sex unions under the current circumstances? That would surprise me, given what is going on generally in ECUSA these days.

One thing I don't understand is how there can be no mechanism in ECUSA for isolating and defrocking a heretical Bishop like Spong. Shouldn't there be some mechanism? In Catholicism, it's the Vatican. In Ortrhodoxy, we have the appropriate synod who would do something in the case of a Spong-like Bishop. Why doesn't ECUSA have something like this, and if it does exist why wasn't it used? Doesn't this have a dramatic impact on how ECUSA is perceived, even if most of ECUSA (and I'm not sure that this is the case, but let's assume so for the sake of discussion) disagrees with most of what Spong has written?

Well, we do have mechanisms for ejecting Spong. A set of bishops puts together what's called a presentment, and a trial is held. The problem is that it doesn't work.

The Episcopal Church has mandatory retirement, and Spong has thus been made to retire. If we didn't, there would surely have been a presentment when he put out his Theses. By that point he had managed to set everyone's teeth on edge. But he was about to retire, and the general sentiment was that it wasn't worth the bother to throw him out.

Before that, there was the presentment against Righter, and before that, Pike. The traditionalists lost on both of these. Opinions differ as to exactly why. But the bonds of collegiality appear to be strong than the will to expell "heresy".

Why the quotes around heresy? That is pretty pathetic that the ECUSA couldn't get rid of a blasphemer like that. That really ticks me off, especially since my university (UNC Chapel Hill) fawns all over the b------- as a bishop and alumnus. I believe men like him are the result of 500 years of rebellion and lies.

Keble is being generous about ECUSA. Having spent more than five years on my way into ECUSA, five years in it and the last two in recovery, I think it safe to say that "heresy" is really heresy. Spong is an heretic, having denied every single tenet (in his too numerous writings) of the Creed. Of course, he also denies, as Christian faith, things that are actually heresy. For example, he has often referred to Mary as some sort of divine chute down which God came to this world. This, of course, is from Nestorianism, and is not what the Church teaches. So that Spong resists this is a good thing. Trouble is, that's about as close to orthodoxy as he gets (rejecting other heresies) while he keeps on espousing his unitarians universalism.

As to why ECUSA doesn't discipline its heretics: there's not enough conservative, orthodox bishops to successfully do so. If David Virtue is right in his newsletter, the AAC (a conservative group within ECUSA) instead of being fired up over recent developments and grateful that at last the issues will be clear and not muddied under "charity" and "hospitality", are hanging their heads. Methinks they know that Robinson will gain the necessary consents, which will effectively broker in official acceptance of homosexuality. Same sex union rites are close behind. If not at this GenCon, then at the next. And anyway, same sex unions are de facto policy in ECUSA anyway. Most dioceses accept them and/or do them. Though there are a few dozen dioceses that still hold to orthodox sexuality.

It's not that I don't think Spong himself is hopelessly heretical. The theses are laughable.

Anglicans have chosen that not all differences of theological opinion are worth schism over. Plainly this tolerance is, at best, being abused. The bishops are plainly failing to draw lines of what is beyond the pale.

Keble is being generous about ECUSA. Having spent more than five years on my way into ECUSA, five years in it and the last two in recovery, I think it safe to say that "heresy" is really heresy. Spong is an heretic, having denied every single tenet (in his too numerous writings) of the Creed.

Spong is, for better or worse, largely a non-issue. The battle right now is going to be homosexuality.

Robinson's consents and homosexual unions are not the same issue. Even a lot of liberals who support the latter don't want to press the issue on it. The communion is already starting to divide over it, thanks to New Westminster.

There are enough conservatives. If they take their dioceses out, there are far more than enough of them to maintain a viable episcopate. The problem is that leaving means abandoning the rest of the church to its fate, and that fate is surely runaway liberalism and eventually unitarianism.

Robinson's consents are by contrast merely scandalous. If you say that he can't be a bishop, you're a Donatist; the worst that can be said is that he shouldn't be a bishop. At least one bishop has come out and said that he will never recognize Robinson, but even most of the conservatives won't that that attitude. And anyway, the polity of the church can withstand that. What it can't withstand is writing same-sex marriages into the BCP.

I've never figured out what the AAC's problem is. They don't seem to be able to figure out what to do that is effectual. If there is a fracture they might prove useful in keeping it coherent, because the risk is that, once the bonds of collegiality start to break, instead of two Episcopal Churches, we may end up with a dozen. With two bodies, Cantuar has a much easier choice as to whom to recognize as the local Anglican church. Beyond that, the likelyhood is that Schofield, Iker and Ackerman will find themselves outside the communion and will end up forming a sort of Anglican Old Calendarist group that proves irrelevant.

I don't think it's true that most dioceses accept or do same-sex unions. No American diocese has an official rite for them (that's what the fuss in New Westminster is about). Probably a lot of them ignore that they are being done, but I don't think the number is as great as some would like to believe. Our bishop, who is certainly a social liberal, has said in public that the church shouldn't be doing such a thing until a theology is worked out.

Beyond that, the likelyhood is that Schofield, Iker and Ackerman will find themselves outside the communion and will end up forming a sort of Anglican Old Calendarist group that proves irrelevant.

Well, they could end up in the AMiA and thus remain in the communion, FWIW. Or they could end up in one of the Continuing churches, or as you seem to suggest, they could end being yet another Continuing church by default.

As for the nasty-sounding remark about irrelevancy, I think I understand - to the larger world perhaps they are. But I've found wherever I've gone, Anglican, Catholic or Orthodox, the practising orthodox always have been a small remnant 'irrelevant' to the larger world. But not to God, and certainly Schofield's, Iker's and Ackerman's ministry is not 'irrelevant' to the remnant of orthodox congregations who depend on them.

Beyond that, the likelyhood is that Schofield, Iker and Ackerman will find themselves outside the communion and will end up forming a sort of Anglican Old Calendarist group that proves irrelevant.

Well, they could end up in the AMiA and thus remain in the communion, FWIW. Or they could end up in one of the Continuing churches, or as you seem to suggest, they could end being yet another Continuing church by default.

Well, they would be better than the existing Continuing churches because ethey would be free of some of the nagging polity issues; possibly the other could coalesce around them (though I doubt that-- the sense I get from the Continuings is that they are afraid of structure). They wouldn't end up in the AMiA. A substantial split in ECUSA should bring the AMiA to an end, because an orthodox Anglican church in the USA without defects of polity means that the USA can't be considered a mission field any longer; therefore such a church should absorb the AMiA. Whether or not that orthodox Anglican church includes them or not is immaterial.

Quote

As for the nasty-sounding remark about irrelevancy, I think I understand - to the larger world perhaps they are. But I've found wherever I've gone, Anglican, Catholic or Orthodox, the practising orthodox always have been a small remnant 'irrelevant' to the larger world.

Well, I don't think that's true. Orthodoxy itself provides the counterexample. When the Antiochians brought Gilquist's group in, it marked a turning point from an ethnic enclave to an evangelistic force; other Orthodox bodies have done the same, but others have not. That's yet another problem with the continuing churches. They have specifically chosen flight from having to engage the Episcopal Church's problems, and thus have have retreated into a personal and corporate piety which is irrelevant to evangelism. They don't make converts; the Episcopal Church makes converts for them.

Orthodoxy (and even Orthodox say this) has had the problem of taking its members for granted. The problem with Alexii complaining about Baptists and Catholics invading his turf is that there is obviously a lack of will on the part of the Russian church to do anything about it. They refuse to acknowledge that in the here and now, Russians aren't going to be baptized at the local Russian church simply because they are born in Russia. The same attitude, from what I hear, pervades the GOA. If the church can't speak Christ to the world, then it doesn't have a purpose.

No, Serge, the remaining orthodox Anglicans in ECUSA will remain in the Anglican Communion-those who support same-sex marriages in ECUSA, even though they might be in the majority in the United States, will take themselves out of the world-wide Anglican Communion.

Keble,So, is Orthodoxy donatist if an Orthodox bishop refuses to ordain a divorced man to the priesthood? If the governing body of an autocephaus Church decides to enforce a ban against non-celibate homosexuals, how is that donatist? Aren't there canons against that sort of thing-you know, celibacy, chastity, etc? Or, if donatism is still a problem, consecrate him then defrock him for not being faithful to scriptural teachings. I'm not as pessimistic to think that anycharge against him devolves into donatism.

Boswell, it seems to me, rightly questions whether Robinson is qualified to be consecrated bishop. Indeed, it is clear that he is not qualified. He should never be made bishop.

Keble seems to be focusing on the reaction post-consecration. If someone claims that Robinson's "sacraments" don't work because he's sinful, then it does seem to tread awfully close to Donatism.

On the other hand, Orthodoxy has never quite made of the sacrament of ordination the legal status that is focused on in the West. In Orthodoxy, as I understand it, a bishop must not only be validly consecrated but must hold to the truth of the Faith. Robinson might be validly consecrated (though clearly some on this board, myself included, would be willing to entertain doubts as to that validity), but that does not unequivocally make him a bishop if he is also a heretic.

Others on the board who have more of an understanding of canon law may clarify and correct my points here, but I think I'm close to the mark.

I think it is worth remembering that the promotors of many of the early heresies were at one point priests or bishops in the Orthodox church. It is better to consider our own failings than to judge others, for our pride could very easily lead us into our own personal view of Orthodoxy which is just as much a heresy as anything else that has gone on before. I would hate to find myself standing among the goats on the last day.

Clint, please don't express yourself in such a manner. When people come on this board and say things like "Orthodoxy sucks" or "Orthodox people are going to hell" I erase their posts or edit them. Even though this is an Orthodox board, when one attacks non-Orthodox in a taunting and spiteful way, it still bothers many because we are a community, and we have Protestant members. While we cannot condone the fact that Protestants are not in the Orthodox Church, we most certainly can choose more Christian ways of expressing our disagreement with their doctrines or practices.

We should be wary of tossing the "heretic" label around. I'd bet that all of us are, somewhere in our heart of hearts, adherents to our own little doctrines that aren't true. If we go to limiting "heresy" to disputes about "official" doctrines, then we are being legalistic about it.

As for heresies about what is moral and what is not: I'll bet that for every Robinson or Otis Charles there are ten Orthodox bishops who are teaching Phariseeisms and other more commonplace moral defects which Jesus condemns at length. Talking about this in terms of dogma is at least dubious. Talking about "qualifications" as if they were dogmatic requirements is just not legitimate. By those standards Charles Colson shouldn't be preaching to anyone, but it seems that it is precisely his conspicuous failings that brought the Spirit into his voice.

I'm hardly trying to argue that Robinson ought to be consecrated. Never mind the homosexuality; the circumstances of his divorce are toe-curling, to say the least. And there are other reasons as well.

We should be wary of tossing the "heretic" label around. I'd bet that all of us are, somewhere in our heart of hearts, adherents to our own little doctrines that aren't true. If we go to limiting "heresy" to disputes about "official" doctrines, then we are being legalistic about it.

True, but I don't think that's what's meant by 'heretic'. Limiting the definition is not legalistic. A heretic is somebody who knows what the church teaches, publicly rejects it and gathers a following, threatening the well-being of the Body of Christ, the Church, and its members, including the 'little ones' in the faith who can be easily led astray. These criteria are why the church doesn't go after and slap excommunications on every Joe Bloggs who has a wrong opinion.

As for heresies about what is moral and what is not: I'll bet that for every Robinson or Otis Charles there are ten Orthodox bishops who are teaching Phariseeisms and other more commonplace moral defects which Jesus condemns at length. Talking about this in terms of dogma is at least dubious. Talking about "qualifications" as if they were dogmatic requirements is just not legitimate. By those standards Charles Colson shouldn't be preaching to anyone, but it seems that it is precisely his conspicuous failings that brought the Spirit into his voice.

Keble:

I read and registered your disclaimers, but it seems you come close to jettisoning standards altogether. Yes, of course, we all fail miserably. Yes, of course, the most orthodox of Christian leaders can have many secret sins and sins of blindness to one's own faults being among the most prevalent at times. And if your remarks were meant to instill in us a bit more humility, well, amen. I know I for one need it.

On the other hand, it is not inappropriate for us to discern a person's failures to qualify for sacramental orders. It is not illegitimate "legalism." It is remaining faithful to the standards of God. The difference is: though the leader might fail in many ways, large and small, does his life exhibit a character of repentance, and would those failures scandalize (in the etymological sense) his flock were he to be ordained? No need to nitpick here. This is clearly what we are called to do: inspect the fruit of a leader's life. This will hardly ever lead to mathematically precise decisions, but that does not mean it will not lead to clear and proper decisions.

As for heresies about what is moral and what is not: I'll bet that for every Robinson or Otis Charles there are ten Orthodox bishops who are teaching Phariseeisms and other more commonplace moral defects which Jesus condemns at length.

And I'd bet against you.

That is not to say that individual Orthodox bishops are impeccable or infallible; they aren't.

But they also aren't militant or practicing homosexuals, or women, or atheists, either.

And their pharisaic antics (if they are committing any) aren't making the international news on an almost daily basis, bringing the Church and her Savior into disrepute.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

As for heresies about what is moral and what is not: I'll bet that for every Robinson or Otis Charles there are ten Orthodox bishops who are teaching Phariseeisms and other more commonplace moral defects which Jesus condemns at length.

And I'd bet against you.

I have to read that as an expression of parochial pride.

Quote

That is not to say that individual Orthodox bishops are impeccable or infallible; they aren't.

But they also aren't militant or practicing homosexuals, or women, or atheists, either.

But now you are confounding issues. These are three quite unlike issues. One is basic faith; one is sacramental theology; and one is moral theology. The only uniting priniciple behind them is the issue of church authority in establishing the three as inarguably wrong.

Quote

And their pharisaic antics (if they are committing any) aren't making the international news on an almost daily basis, bringing the Church and her Savior into disrepute.

But they are just as destructive.

One of the big issues about Robinson is that even those who oppose his consecration admit that he is an excellent pastor in all other respects. The consents rest solely on the scandal of his sexual situation.

But priests and bishops who are rude, or arrogant, or legalistic, or (in the worst case) covering up the egregious sins of others do plenty of damage. And in the case of the RC bishops, it is making the news. Homosexuality may be a worse scandal for you, but it is not a worse scandal for everyone, even for those who are scandalized.

As for heresies about what is moral and what is not: I'll bet that for every Robinson or Otis Charles there are ten Orthodox bishops who are teaching Phariseeisms and other more commonplace moral defects which Jesus condemns at length.

And I'd bet against you.

I have to read that as an expression of parochial pride.

Dear Keble,

Could not your original remark be read in the same way? Or else, are you not going to give Linus the same benefit of the doubt your statement could be given? I'm sorry, I just don't understand this part of your post.

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

Keble<<And in the case of the RC bishops, it is making the news. Homosexuality may be a worse scandal for you, but it is not a worse scandal for everyone, even for those who are scandalized. >>

But the RC bishops who make the news are homosexuals or cover up their antics.

As for parochial pride, who is the one who loves the ECUSA so much that they justify electing gay bishops or at least blow it off and say how wicked the "pharisaical" bishops (who actually believe in Christianity)? Who is proud?

<<One of the big issues about Robinson is that even those who oppose his consecration admit that he is an excellent pastor in all other respects. The consents rest solely on the scandal of his sexual situation.>>

Hello, everyone! I'm an Episcopalian also, who finds just about everything Keble has said to be right on the money (to let you know where I'm coming from). I have just been engaged in a rather bruising discussion of this issue on beliefnet and came over here to take refuge, only to find that certain Orthodox are taking advantage of our problems to sneer at their fellow Christians.

I have spent time in Eastern Europe (mainly Romania). I have seen any number of ways in which Orthodox bishops, priests, and laity hold up the Church to scorn. Like Protestants. Like Roman Catholics. It's fine for you to criticize us, but you accomplish nothing by making sweeping generalizations about how apostate we are. I don't see what is accomplished by picking on the week spots of another Christian body and trying to use them to discredit the group as a whole.

Ah, yes, here it finally comes to fruition: We've descended to the "your church has as evil a bunch of sinners in it as does ours." Although, I must say, I wonder if the tones of some of the replies here aren't a bit smug, both ECUSAn and Orthodox.

Let's face it, as a one-time Episcopalian (and I was one until just about a year and a half ago), I can confidently say, while there are plenty of local parishes and priests, and a handful of bishops, whom the Orthodox here on this board would find praiseworthy, as a denomination, ECUSAn morals and GenCon machinations are nothing for Christians to shout about. Frankly, I don't care if Robinson's pastoral skills are better than any man who's ever lived save our Lord alone, his public and unrepentant sin disqualifies him from ordained ministry--we don't need to go into whether his "sacrements are valid" he doesn't deserve to be in the clergy. If ECUSA were the Church of even two hundred years ago (Rome, Protestant, Orthodox, take your pick), Robinson would have been defrocked when he left his wife and daughters, lover or no.

On the other hand, it seems to me that some of the Orthodox replies have seemed (it's hard to tell with internet text) to take some sense of satisfaction that ECUSA is doing those very things Orthodox say are so evil. How is this any different than the judgmentalism of the heretical and immoral bigots that mouth off in ECUSA?

I'm sorry, whether it's Keble and Edwin, or Linus or Frobhisher, this whole discussion is turning into pointing at one another and saying "beam" and pointing at ourselves and saying "speck." Fact of the matter is, we've all got to take a good dose of humility and look at ourselves and say, "Yep, beam after all."

I am mystified that Keble and Edwin would rise to defend the highhanded, self-centered episcopal campaign of Robinson, even if that defense "merely" rises to the level of "your sin is just as bad a ours." Robinson is indefensible. Period.

But I am equally mystified that the Orthodox with whom I so strongly identify right now, though I"m not yet chrismated, would resort to the same sort of replies.

Yes, I happen to think that the sort of immorality and heresy that goes on in ECUSA is worse simply because it pawns itself off as Christian. But I am also horrified when I see legalism and judgmentalism in Orthodox leaders, instead of God-honoring humility. I know that I, as an "almost-Orthodox" (if there is such a thing), would wish that Keble and Edwin could be wooed by the joy and peace that the one Church which is Orthodoxy truly has to offer. And surely if Keble and Edwin wish us to have a less "legalistic" view of ECUSA, they would see that the p***ing match of "your leaders are just as much sinners as ours" will get them nowhere as fast.

Well put, both of you. I'm all for peace, as Keble et al. are as well (I hope). This is an Orthodox board, however, and I have been upset by some of the posting here lately that has been very critical of Orthodoxy. I propose this thread be closed since it has little to do with it and it is breaking down into an Orthodox v. Anglican dispute, which I don't want (though my posts say otherwise).

This is a place for all Christians to hang out, but I believe that, since we are guests, we should respect the Orthodox's right to not have their bishops tarnished and their faith trashed on their own board. And we should also respect the Episcopalians, even if we disagree with their policies and doctrine (which I do). But this is an Orthodox board, and I think we can all agree that this thread is not beneficial to that end.